Every time I see this I have to point out how wrong it is. Xenomorphs lack intelligence, they do not have sapience. That makes them true neutral, as are all other animals. They do not make moral choices, they simply attempt to survive as their nature dictates. Xenomorphs are no more evil than honeybadgers, they are just a **** ton more deadly.

Jack Sparrow is Chaotic Good. When the chips are down, Sparrow will end up doing the right thing, even if it costs him. A chaotic neutral individual would only do so if they profited. They will never come at the bum end of a deal.

Picard is Lawful Good, bordering on Neutral Good. He's more comparable to a Paladin than he is to a neutral character. Picard always strives to do the right thing and has a very, very strict moral code. He frequently struggles with the law, including the prime directive, if it prevents him from doing what he perceives as moral and just.

Neutral evil characters do not preform actions from a lenses of chaos or order. They do not uphold some personal morale code, nor are they mindlessly destructive or violent. They do evil for evil's sake, because it gets results and gets them what they want. Lex Luthor is undoubtedly evil by the actions that he takes, but he does not lean in the lawful or chaotic spectrums.

I'd personally say that Jack maybe started as CN, but shifted toward CG as the series progressed.
But I've never really thought of V as CG. He was perfectly willing to to let innocents die to achieve his goals, and caused a lot of deaths, directly or indirectly. However, he wasn't evil per se, so maybe I'd peg him as more CN.

The problem is, you're going exclusively from the ability of the queen being able to control and direct the hive, like a central computer. As the hive grows bigger, it gets 'smarter', like an AI getting more and more servers and processing power. The hive itself is intelligent, and powerful. Individual xenomorphs, while clever, are not intelligent. They're animals. Without a queen they're directionless. The smartest thing they ever did was kill one of their own, knowing that their blood can be used as a weapon,

Not solely. The scene where Ripley threatens to burn the queen's eggs after saving the kid in Aliens is the biggest reason I think she's sapient. They have a tacit standoff, with the queen understanding that if she holds back her brood and let's Ripley leave with the kid, Ripley won't kill the eggs. Ripley breaks this agreement as she leaves, and burns the eggs anyways, which enrages the queen more than when Ripley had killed all the Xenomorphs prior to that point.

Your point about the queen is pretty much what I said earlier: "but a developed hive with a queen is as smart or smarter than a person." The queen is the important part, or else the Xenomorphs are basically a bunch of severed limbs. Angry severed limbs.

But for real man, where the hell did you get the idea that they wouldn't pass the mirror test? And even if an individual Xenomorph didn't, that'd be like a finger not passing the mirror test; it's part of a greater whole, and doesn't posses sapience itself. It's a tool.

Again, you're talking about the Queen, the physical manifestation of the hive mind. The central processing of the super computer that is the hive working together to make a smarter body. The hive appears smarter than the single creature, this goes together with every swarm animal. Bees, ants, so on. A queen by itself, while smarter than the average xenomorph, is not as intelligent without the hive to back it up. You have to consider the animals themselves, not the hive intellect, when determining sapience.

I feel like we are kind of saying the same thing. The queen, with a hive, is intelligent. Where we differ is in thinking the hivemind as a whole can be considered sapient or not. I think it can, and you think it can't. You think that for sapience, each part of the whole must be sapient, while I think that the parts can just be pieces that are greater than the sum of themselves.

If I was forced to take the hive intellect as the sole identifier, then the books have you answer in the form of the super queen, which was quiet clearly sapient and lured Ripley to the alien home world purposefully. She'd still be true neutral, because she's not making moral choices and is purely acting in interest in spreading her brood and survival, but she was a sapient being. She had a connection with EVERY xenomorph in the galaxy and could even reach out to the genetically modified clone Ripley from light years away, influencing her behavior and actions. That level of neural linking made her on par with the Geth when it came to being able to think on a complex level.

But I do not consider hive intellect the marker of sapience. It's an intelligence of the masses. Sapience is defined as an individual's ability to form complex thought, not a groups.

They are but in varying ways (small amount of simplification in this)
(mostly because these classes are common to a wide range of RP games)
paladins are pretty much what most people assume they are, holy warriors serving their god
monks are warrior monks
Paladins seek perfection of behaviour (and through that the soul)
Monks seek perfection of the soul (and because of that, behaviour)

It's kind of like they're the same class but approach their goal from different ends.

I'm GMing a freeform game where the PCs are demigods and they're trying to become gods
Yes, I did get the idea of that greentext story.
So far the PCs have proved that they can't do ****.

Immortal demigods with divine powers and what do they do? They find a village in the middle of nowhere, one of them tries to eat the palisade, then absorbs a goat soul.
When the farmer gets angry at that the demigod brutally murders him with a rusty sword before slaughtering the whole village, getting all 3 of the PCs killed in the process.

You're a player, as far as I'm concerned, it's the players duty to twist what the GM gives them to their advantage.
If the GM gave you an infinite supply of ravens, then you try to turn them to your advantage, if the GM really doesn't want you doing that then you won't succeed, buty you will have tried.